Death Penalty

February 08, 1989|By G.R. Paterson.

WILMETTE — Robert Gillmore is entitled to his dislike of the death penalty, and I do not wish to engage him on the merits of that issue. However, he is not entitled to misread and misrepresent the Constitution to support his position (``Why the death penalty is unconstitutional,`` Jan. 26.)

All of Gillmore`s laborious arguments (15 paragraphs of them) vanish into vapor when we read the Constitution itself. The 5th Amendment provides that there must be a presentment or indictment by a grand jury before a person is held to answer ``for a capital or otherwise infamous crime.`` Similarly, the 14th Amendment provides that due process must be observed before any person is deprived of ``life, liberty or property.`` It could not be any clearer. The framers fully accepted the idea of capital punishment and, because of its gravity, provided for scrupulous care in its application.

But, says Gillmore, he has the support of Supreme Court Justice William Brennan for the claim of unconstitutionality. This is true, alas, for Justice Brennan has made a career of reading the Constitution not to discover what it actually says, but to see how his own policy preferences can be imported into it. That is why Brennan`s anticipated retirement in the near future is an agreeable prospect for those who would like to see a higher standard of intellectual honesty on the court.

If a majority of Americans wish to abolish the death penalty, let them work through their state and national legislatures to do so. But supporters of such causes cannot be allowed to abolish the democratic process by invoking purposeful misreadings of fundamental law.